The league lacks superstar talent

[Eja117]

That actually shows the opposite -- who's left in the 78-88 era NBA if you take out the Dream Team? The overall talent level was lower in the 70's and 80's, and that's even with the benefit of having a more condensed talent pool.

LOL, that is the weakest argument maybe I have ever seen you do.  Keep throwing stuff up there and maybe if you do enough something will have merit.   There were more All Americans in the league in the past, because there were less teams.   Also, I think more teams had a star, Wilkins was not on one of the Big NBA teams back then and he would have owned today.  Jack Sigma, would be a terrific post nowadays.  I could go on and on.

You really think today is better than these guys?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1338152-legends-of-the-nba-25-best-players-of-the-80s/page/2

Note how many of these fall in this era as opposed to the 80s

http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/11/best-all-around-nba-players/hakeem-olajuwon

Google 100 Greatest NBA players and you won't find as many today as in 78-88 era.      Heck, even college ball was better back then.

At the risk of sounding like a condescending jerk, you realize what nostalgia is and how it works, particularly as it relates to something like the NBA, right?* And the point has never been that the stars were greater or worse in a given era. Stop acting like I'm saying that, or at least take your head out of your waste storage unit and actually read my posts please.

The point is that the average player is better now than ever before. The talent pool is deeper, the scouting is more thorough, the game has evolved, so on and so forth. You can say that the '86 Celtics are the greatest team ever, and I won't argue, but they're certainly the exception that proves the rule, and not any sort of standard for a league average.


*If you don't, check out the NBA's 50 Greatest Players Ever list they commissioned back in 1996-97. How many of those selections look positively quaint?

wait wait wait......so....without getting into fancy math terms like median or mean or standard deviation or something are you saying if you took like a .500 team (probably an 8 seed or so) from the 80s and a .500 team from now...the one from now would win?

I guess that forgives the part where tanking may be more rampant now, but you know what I mean.

In 85/86, the 8th seed in the East was 30-52 and the 8th seed in the West was 35-47.  That was the year Jordan only played in 18 games and thus the Bulls probably would have been a bit better, but their starting lineup in the playoffs was Orlando Woolridge, Jordan, Charles Oakley, Dave Corzine and Kyle Macy.  Oakley was a rookie that year.  The Spurs the 8th seed in the West had a playoff starting 5 of Wes Mathews, Mike Mitchell, David Greenwood, Alvin Robertson, and Artis Gilmore.  Gilmore was 36 and nearing retirement. 

The 8th seeds last year were the 38 win Hawks (without Horford) and the 49 win Mavericks.  You tell me, who would you favor in all those series (now granted the Bulls with Jordan were a better team than without him, but Jordan was just coming back and didn't have a whole lot else to work with).  Now granted the 8th seeds in 85-86 were closer to the bottom than the 8th seeds today, but a 49 win team would have been the 5th seed in the East and 3rd seed in the West in 85-86.  In fact only 10 of the 23 teams were above .500 in 85-86 (43.48%) and 6 teams below .500 made the playoffs.  In contrast, last year more than half the league was above .500 (16 of the 30 teams). 

By any real measurable the league is better today than in the 80's.  There is more depth and more quality players across the league despite there being more teams.

Maybe I opened a bizarre can of apples to oranges worms. I mean I have no idea if there was a salary cap then or bird rights or what.  I don't think the NBDL existed although I think the CBA did.

[Celtics4ever]

In 85/86, the 8th seed in the East was 30-52 and the 8th seed in the West was 35-47.  That was the year Jordan only played in 18 games and thus the Bulls probably would have been a bit better, but their starting lineup in the playoffs was Orlando Woolridge, Jordan, Charles Oakley, Dave Corzine and Kyle Macy.

Gervin came off the bench and he was not too shabby that year.  16.2 PPG  Still the Iceman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gervin

The 8th seeds last year were the 38 win Hawks (without Horford) and the 49 win Mavericks.  You tell me, who would you favor in all those series (now granted the Bulls with Jordan were a better team than without him, but Jordan was just coming back and didn't have a whole lot else to work with).  Now granted the 8th seeds in 85-86 were closer to the bottom than the 8th seeds today, but a 49 win team would have been the 5th seed in the East and 3rd seed in the West in 85-86.  In fact only 10 of the 23 teams were above .500 in 85-86 (43.48%) and 6 teams below .500 made the playoffs.  In contrast, last year more than half the league was above .500 (16 of the 30 teams).

However, the same is true of top teams in the 80s versus a team today.   Could SA or the HEAT beat Bird, McHale, Parrish and Johnson or Kareem, Magic and Worthy.  Good luck, with that.  We had a guys coming off the bench like Walton who is better then Anderson who started for the HEAT.

I think the Sixers with Irving, Malone, Toney, Cheeks and Jones would do well today.  None of the pansy big men could stop Malone.

[Donoghus]

In 85/86, the 8th seed in the East was 30-52 and the 8th seed in the West was 35-47.  That was the year Jordan only played in 18 games and thus the Bulls probably would have been a bit better, but their starting lineup in the playoffs was Orlando Woolridge, Jordan, Charles Oakley, Dave Corzine and Kyle Macy.

Gervin came off the bench and he was not too shabby that year.  16.2 PPG  Still the Iceman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gervin

The 8th seeds last year were the 38 win Hawks (without Horford) and the 49 win Mavericks.  You tell me, who would you favor in all those series (now granted the Bulls with Jordan were a better team than without him, but Jordan was just coming back and didn't have a whole lot else to work with).  Now granted the 8th seeds in 85-86 were closer to the bottom than the 8th seeds today, but a 49 win team would have been the 5th seed in the East and 3rd seed in the West in 85-86.  In fact only 10 of the 23 teams were above .500 in 85-86 (43.48%) and 6 teams below .500 made the playoffs.  In contrast, last year more than half the league was above .500 (16 of the 30 teams).

However, the same is true of top teams in the 80s versus a team today.   Could SA or the HEAT beat Bird, McHale, Parrish and Johnson or Kareem, Magic and Worthy.  Good luck, with that.  We had a guys coming off the bench like Walton who is better then Anderson who started for the HEAT.

I think the Sixers with Irving, Malone, Toney, Cheeks and Jones would do well today.  None of the pansy big men could stop Malone.

To play "devil's advocate" if I may, I doubt all those guys would be playing together on the same team in today's NBA due to the additional teams and more "salary driven" economics of today's game.

Those teams were certainly deeper in the 80s, though.

[D.o.s.]

You can't just unfreeze teams, though -- there's years of basketball strategy and coaching in the mix. What do you do if you take the Spurs and put them in a game where there's no three point line? What happens if the Showtime Lakers are forced to play under 2015's rules?

Why are we still talking about star players, anyway?

[Celtics4ever]

Why are we still talking about star players, anyway?

I do not think we have any.  I have to go cya, later guys.

[BballTim]

That actually shows the opposite -- who's left in the 78-88 era NBA if you take out the Dream Team? The overall talent level was lower in the 70's and 80's, and that's even with the benefit of having a more condensed talent pool.

LOL, that is the weakest argument maybe I have ever seen you do.  Keep throwing stuff up there and maybe if you do enough something will have merit.   There were more All Americans in the league in the past, because there were less teams.   Also, I think more teams had a star, Wilkins was not on one of the Big NBA teams back then and he would have owned today.  Jack Sigma, would be a terrific post nowadays.  I could go on and on.

You really think today is better than these guys?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1338152-legends-of-the-nba-25-best-players-of-the-80s/page/2

Note how many of these fall in this era as opposed to the 80s

http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/11/best-all-around-nba-players/hakeem-olajuwon

Google 100 Greatest NBA players and you won't find as many today as in 78-88 era.      Heck, even college ball was better back then.

At the risk of sounding like a condescending jerk, you realize what nostalgia is and how it works, particularly as it relates to something like the NBA, right?* And the point has never been that the stars were greater or worse in a given era. Stop acting like I'm saying that, or at least take your head out of your waste storage unit and actually read my posts please.

The point is that the average player is better now than ever before. The talent pool is deeper, the scouting is more thorough, the game has evolved, so on and so forth. You can say that the '86 Celtics are the greatest team ever, and I won't argue, but they're certainly the exception that proves the rule, and not any sort of standard for a league average.


*If you don't, check out the NBA's 50 Greatest Players Ever list they commissioned back in 1996-97. How many of those selections look positively quaint?

wait wait wait......so....without getting into fancy math terms like median or mean or standard deviation or something are you saying if you took like a .500 team (probably an 8 seed or so) from the 80s and a .500 team from now...the one from now would win?

I guess that forgives the part where tanking may be more rampant now, but you know what I mean.

In 85/86, the 8th seed in the East was 30-52 and the 8th seed in the West was 35-47.  That was the year Jordan only played in 18 games and thus the Bulls probably would have been a bit better, but their starting lineup in the playoffs was Orlando Woolridge, Jordan, Charles Oakley, Dave Corzine and Kyle Macy.  Oakley was a rookie that year.  The Spurs the 8th seed in the West had a playoff starting 5 of Wes Mathews, Mike Mitchell, David Greenwood, Alvin Robertson, and Artis Gilmore.  Gilmore was 36 and nearing retirement. 

The 8th seeds last year were the 38 win Hawks (without Horford) and the 49 win Mavericks.  You tell me, who would you favor in all those series (now granted the Bulls with Jordan were a better team than without him, but Jordan was just coming back and didn't have a whole lot else to work with).  Now granted the 8th seeds in 85-86 were closer to the bottom than the 8th seeds today, but a 49 win team would have been the 5th seed in the East and 3rd seed in the West in 85-86.  In fact only 10 of the 23 teams were above .500 in 85-86 (43.48%) and 6 teams below .500 made the playoffs.  In contrast, last year more than half the league was above .500 (16 of the 30 teams). 

By any real measurable the league is better today than in the 80's.  There is more depth and more quality players across the league despite there being more teams.

  All you really demonstrated above is that there's a) a talent gap between the east and the west, and b) that there are more bad teams now than there were then.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

What do you mean..you have LEBRON..LOL..and his ARMY he needs to do the work for him...!

[bcgenuis]

Why are we still talking about star players, anyway?

I do not think we have any.  I have to go cya, later guys.

OP here:
 The point I was making isn't which era was/is better.  Rather, the league is in a period of transition and does that effect the Celtics rebuild and chase of banner 18.

In other words, the deals Danny made to grab KG and Allen and mix them with what was left arent feasible at this time because there aren't KG's and Allen's out there.  Today's equivalent would be getting Durant and Curry. 

So the question is how do you rebuild? There are no transcendent players to trade for.  Do you go after Melo level players? Acquire 2 or 3 of those? Do you hope for a home run in the drafts?

[banty19]

Get off my lawn! But seriously, there's plenty of young stars right now:

1) Anthony Davis: Easily comparable to prime young/prime KG. Great player on a horrible team. Difference is AD's a better offensive player. KG was a better defensive player.

2) Durant and Westbrook: Both are still just 26.

3) Boogie Cousins: 24 and when his head's on right he's a Shaq-like/lite beast with better shooting and handles.

4) Steph Curry: 26 and has the potential to be seen along with Ray and Reggie as the greatest shooters of all time.

5) Damian Lillard: Explosive athlete with great makeup. 24.

6) Blake Griffin is still just 25.

7) James Harden is still 25.

And there's plenty more. There's probably no "best of all time" talents but Anthony Davis and Durant are close.

[Moranis]

In 85/86, the 8th seed in the East was 30-52 and the 8th seed in the West was 35-47.  That was the year Jordan only played in 18 games and thus the Bulls probably would have been a bit better, but their starting lineup in the playoffs was Orlando Woolridge, Jordan, Charles Oakley, Dave Corzine and Kyle Macy.

Gervin came off the bench and he was not too shabby that year.  16.2 PPG  Still the Iceman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gervin

The 8th seeds last year were the 38 win Hawks (without Horford) and the 49 win Mavericks.  You tell me, who would you favor in all those series (now granted the Bulls with Jordan were a better team than without him, but Jordan was just coming back and didn't have a whole lot else to work with).  Now granted the 8th seeds in 85-86 were closer to the bottom than the 8th seeds today, but a 49 win team would have been the 5th seed in the East and 3rd seed in the West in 85-86.  In fact only 10 of the 23 teams were above .500 in 85-86 (43.48%) and 6 teams below .500 made the playoffs.  In contrast, last year more than half the league was above .500 (16 of the 30 teams).

However, the same is true of top teams in the 80s versus a team today.   Could SA or the HEAT beat Bird, McHale, Parrish and Johnson or Kareem, Magic and Worthy.  Good luck, with that.  We had a guys coming off the bench like Walton who is better then Anderson who started for the HEAT.

I think the Sixers with Irving, Malone, Toney, Cheeks and Jones would do well today.  None of the pansy big men could stop Malone.

I think the Heat or Spurs would have matched up very well with the Celtics and Lakers of the 80's.  And for the record, Anderson never started for Miami.  He wasn't even the first big off the bench most of the time (that was Battier or Haslem or Lewis depending some on which one was starting).  The Heat also had a HOF in Ray Allen on their bench the last two years.  The Spurs of course have super sixth man Manu Ginobli on their bench. 

I'd feel pretty comfortable taking the Heat or Spurs of the last couple of years against the 80's Celtics or Lakers.  Series would be close, don't get me wrong, I just see the modern teams winning more times than not. 

[greece66]

The NBA, IMO, is in a transition phase.  The outstanding old talent is on the way out and the mid age 28-32 stars (other than LeBron) don't compare to the prior "generation" and  under 27 young talent has yet to make their mark  and IMO just isnt there.  Also, I just don't see a young transcendent player out there.

Therefore, I believe for the next 3-5 years it'll be a LeBron led team or a team with an oldie + middling star + surround with above avg talent or "teams" with 2-3 of the middling stars that win similarly to the Pistons run.

Old talents, for example, Nowitzki, Duncan, Kobe are in the twilight of their careers.

Mid-age talents, other than Lebron, who really shines? Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, Love.  All can't do it without another 2 middling stars.

Young superstars, none have that magic that Kobe and KG had: Harden comes close and he closing in on middle age.

Which leads me to how do the Celtics move forward?  I think 2 ways, A) land the next transcendent star in the draft or B) acquire 2-3 mid aged stars that can work together and surround them with avg+ talent.

ARE YOU BLIND?

[guava_wrench]

Durant has had a few injuries this season, but he is still Durant and he is not regularly injured. He is a superstar.

Anthony Davis is a superstar. Steph Curry is on the cusp.

Lebron is still a superstar, just like Kobe was at the same age. If you are thinking otherwise, you are overly driven by short term memory.

I think the premise of the OP lacks substance. It is just generalizations and subjective views, like claiming 'magic' made KG more special than current talent (despite his problem winning) and then makes other criticisms that can be applied to every NBA player ever (like needing talented teammates to win it all).

With such a disjointed initial premise, a thorough response is not possible.

[D.o.s.]

The NBA, IMO, is in a transition phase.  The outstanding old talent is on the way out and the mid age 28-32 stars (other than LeBron) don't compare to the prior "generation" and  under 27 young talent has yet to make their mark  and IMO just isnt there.  Also, I just don't see a young transcendent player out there.

Therefore, I believe for the next 3-5 years it'll be a LeBron led team or a team with an oldie + middling star + surround with above avg talent or "teams" with 2-3 of the middling stars that win similarly to the Pistons run.

Old talents, for example, Nowitzki, Duncan, Kobe are in the twilight of their careers.

Mid-age talents, other than Lebron, who really shines? Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, Love.  All can't do it without another 2 middling stars.

Young superstars, none have that magic that Kobe and KG had: Harden comes close and he closing in on middle age.

Which leads me to how do the Celtics move forward?  I think 2 ways, A) land the next transcendent star in the draft or B) acquire 2-3 mid aged stars that can work together and surround them with avg+ talent.

ARE YOU BLIND?

hahahahahahah Tp.

[Moranis]

Anthony Davis is 21 years old and is averaging 23.9 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.9 bpg, 1.6 spg, and 1.6 apg.  He is shooting 57.6% from 2 point range and over 80% from the foul line.  If that doesn't say superstar I don't know what does. 

Demarcus COusins is 24 years old and is averaging 23.5 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 1.6 bpg, 2.9 apg, and 1.1 spg.  He is shooting a respectable 79.7% from the line, though his 49% from 2 is a bit light for a center.  If that doesn't say superstar I don't know what does.

Steph Curry is 26 years old and is averaging 22.9 ppg, 8.0 apg, 5.1 rpg, and 2.2 spg and an obscene 57.6% form 2 for a guard, 39.2% from 3, and 92.3% from the line (30th best all time if he finishes there).  Again, superstar numbers.

John Wall is 24 years old and is averaging 17.4 ppg, 10.4 apg, 4.5 rpg, and 2.1 spg with respectable shooting from a PG.  As PG's guard, he is projecting to go down as a top 5 PG in the history of the game.

Speaking of top 5 PG's in the history of the game, Chris Paul is still performing at a superstar level and at 29 likely has 3ish prime years left before he starts his decline.  And we haven't even discussed James, Durant, Harden, Griffin, Lillard, Aldridge, Rose, George, etc.


The premise of this thread is just silly. 

[guava_wrench]

Anthony Davis is 21 years old and is averaging 23.9 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.9 bpg, 1.6 spg, and 1.6 apg.  He is shooting 57.6% from 2 point range and over 80% from the foul line.  If that doesn't say superstar I don't know what does. 

Demarcus COusins is 24 years old and is averaging 23.5 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 1.6 bpg, 2.9 apg, and 1.1 spg.  He is shooting a respectable 79.7% from the line, though his 49% from 2 is a bit light for a center.  If that doesn't say superstar I don't know what does.

Steph Curry is 26 years old and is averaging 22.9 ppg, 8.0 apg, 5.1 rpg, and 2.2 spg and an obscene 57.6% form 2 for a guard, 39.2% from 3, and 92.3% from the line (30th best all time if he finishes there).  Again, superstar numbers.

John Wall is 24 years old and is averaging 17.4 ppg, 10.4 apg, 4.5 rpg, and 2.1 spg with respectable shooting from a PG.  As PG's guard, he is projecting to go down as a top 5 PG in the history of the game.

Speaking of top 5 PG's in the history of the game, Chris Paul is still performing at a superstar level and at 29 likely has 3ish prime years left before he starts his decline.  And we haven't even discussed James, Durant, Harden, Griffin, Lillard, Aldridge, Rose, George, etc.


The premise of this thread is just silly.

Good list except Rose hasn't even been an all star level player for a few years.